Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3037 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

I would think that, as a result of those reforms in China and as a result of the processes set in place there, the opening up of China, the very liberal attitude that they have in terms of business especially and the overwhelming increase in Western contact with that country, it will not be terribly long in coming that further democratisation of that country and further improvements in human rights will occur.

Traditionally, life has been very cheap indeed in China, certainly in the period before 1978. The forms of torture used in medieval China up to the end of the Manchu dynasty in 1911 were quite appalling, ranging from the death of a thousand cuts to the execution of family members and criminals wandering around with mobile stocks on their heads and unable to feed themselves. Millions of people died in various upheavals in the 20^th century, ranging from the warlord period to the period of the Guomindang, the Japanese occupation that I have mentioned, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which also had horrendous effects not only in China, where so much of Chinese culture was wrecked, but also in Tibet, which I will come to in a minute.

But let us give some credit where credit is due. Since 1978, there have been significant improvements. Ms Tucker mentioned a few things which have happened in the last year which would indicate that some repression is continuing, but no-one who knows anything about history could say that there have not been significant improvements in the lot of ordinary Chinese people over the last 22 years. There is a burgeoning middle class there as more and more people become more and more wealthy as business is being freed up. That has to have some effect in terms of the further democratisation of that country. When and how, I do not know, but that is something that invariably will occur.

We can close our minds to it and back Ms Tucker's motion, but where is that going to get us? I submit that it will get us nowhere, Mr Speaker, because there are numerous Australian cities-indeed, I think the whole of the state of Queensland-which have sister city relationships with various cities in China. It is not a case of the rest of Australia going with us if we back Ms Tucker's motion. That is simply not going to happen.

What are the benefits of actually being more open and having contact? We are able to say to people from China the things we do not like. For example, we are able, if we do not close them off completely, to say things such as: "We do not agree with what the communist government has done in relation to invading Tibet in 1950."

Ms Tucker: Did you say that when you were over there?

MR STEFANIAK: I have said it to a few Chinese officials here, Ms Tucker, and I am putting it on the record now. We are able to say, "We do not approve of what you did in 1950. We are appalled with what occurred in Tibet during the Cultural Revolution." Indeed, the Dalai Lama, who has recently called for autonomy in Tibet, has even suggested that China could have control over foreign affairs and defence. That would be very much like the British protectorate system. That is a most reasonable call. I am happy to put on the record that the Dalai Lama's position there should be supported. It does enable us to do that. By exposing their people to our citizens, they will be able to see how we operate.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .